REGION: Inland red-light cameras going dark

Of the 10 Inland cities that have tried cameras to deter red-light running, all but three have axed their camera programs in the past five years.

And the number could shrink to two if Riverside officials cancel theirs Tuesday, July 8, as expected. That would leave Victorville and Cathedral City with camera enforcement.

Riverside’s move would mirror an anti-camera trend across the state and, to a lesser degree, the country, as officials yield to public complaints, concerns about program costs and safety statistics some find unconvincing.

“I don’t love the idea of taxpayers supporting a program that residents in general ... have complained bitterly about,” said Cathedral City Councilman Sam Toles, who cast the sole vote against continuing his city’s camera program in May.

“It’s a very, very intrusive kind of ‘nanny state-ism’ that I think the public generally does not support.”

Even as the tide appears to have shifted against the cameras, some officials stand by their effectiveness.

“I still firmly believe that red-light cameras, done properly, are a major benefit to traffic safety,” said Corona Councilman Eugene Montanez, who was on the losing side of a 2012 vote to let the city’s camera contract expire.

Though he saw drivers running red lights even with the cameras in place, Montanez said, “I do believe I see more of it now.”

That dichotomy is at the heart of the automated traffic enforcement debate, and for now, the anti-camera side seems to be winning.

FEWER CAMERAS

After appearing in the U.S. in a 1991 New York City test program, red-light cameras grew in popularity over much of the next two decades and spread to hundreds of cities around the county, according to a study by Virginia-based traffic engineer Richard Retting.

The cameras were touted as a better way to punish, or hopefully prevent, a violation that can result in some of the most dangerous “T-bone” crashes.

“It’s a force multiplier on the stance that we don’t have enough personnel to go out and sit at those intersections and monitor them for red-light violations,” Riverside police Sgt. Brian Smith said.

Use of cameras peaked in 2013, with 544 active programs. As of June, it had dropped slightly to 502 communities with programs, according to information from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

In California, rejection of the cameras has been much more dramatic.

Of about 109 cities around the state that have used cameras, only about 46 are still operating them, according to information from the institute and Los Angeles anti-camera activist Jay Beeber. Among Inland cities, only Riverside, Cathedral City and Victorville currently use red-light cameras. Highland’s contract expired at the end of June and was not renewed.

One big reason cameras are no longer welcome in the Golden State? The fine that accompanies a ticket is about $500, far higher than anywhere else in the country. In most states, a camera violation costs between $50 and $100 and counts as a civil offense that doesn’t hurt the driver’s record, Retting said.

That may have encouraged the public perception that camera programs are a money grab, though not all cities came out ahead because most of the money from fines doesn’t go to them.

For example, Riverside nearly canceled its program in 2012 because of a projected $611,000 deficit. Montanez said Corona was “barely breaking even.”

And, officials say, public complaints seem to have increased – though whether there’s more opposition or it’s just louder is in dispute.

Riverside’s council voted in June to have staff bring back a plan to end the city’s contract with Redflex Traffic Systems, with several councilmen citing the high cost of tickets, residents’ opposition to the cameras and a lack of convincing evidence that they increase safety.

In response to an interview request, Redflex spokeswoman Jody Ryan sent a written statement that said the company has renewed nearly 20 contracts with California cities since 2013. She also cited a 2011 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that concluded camera enforcement in 14 cities from 2004 to 2008 reduced fatal accidents by 24 percent.

CONFLICTING STATISTICS

Some of the anti-camera sentiment stems from concerns with the way some camera programs operate, experts and officials say.

Charles Aliano might be a good example of this issue.

The 73-year-old Corona resident, who said he’s had only one speeding ticket in his life, is sure he stopped before making a right turn on Tyler Street at westbound Highway 91 in Riverside in March. But he later received a $490 ticket in the mail.

Aliano had to set up a payment plan because he’s on a fixed income.

The cameras aren’t fair because they don’t make allowances for a safe right turn in a dedicated turn lane, Aliano said. And they have “a hair trigger” that goes off the instant the light changes, he added.

Riverside officials say they designed their program to give drivers the benefit of the doubt. For example, the city only gives tickets on right turns if the driver is going faster than 15 mph. Also, retired police officers review everything captured by the cameras to decide whether a citation is warranted.

Still, those changes may not be enough to sway public opinion on the cameras, said Riverside Councilman Mike Gardner, a camera supporter.

“I think they have received a lot of bad publicity from areas where they have been poorly managed,” he said.

For the average citizen, even safety statistics may be of limited use in the red-light camera debate.

Riverside cites a 43 percent decrease in reported crashes since 2006, when cameras were first installed. The number of citations issued at camera intersections has dropped over time. But it’s hard to prove that the cameras were the reason for fewer accidents, or that more drivers are obeying the law rather than just avoiding the locations with cameras.

Retting, the traffic engineer, wrote a 2010 paper that reviewed 20 years of automated enforcement and concluded cameras decrease red-light running and change drivers’ behavior.

“I think it’s not even debatable that red-light cameras reduce injury crashes and fatalities,” he said, but acknowledged potential negative effects, such as an increase in rear-end crashes.

However, National Motorists’ Association spokesman John Bowman pointed to a 2008 study from University of South Florida researchers that found flaws in other studies’ claims that cameras reduce accidents. The association opposes red-light cameras.

“They really do put a financial burden on motorists for no reason,” he said.

WHAT’S NEXT

So what happens after the cameras are removed? That’s also hard to gauge.

According to news reports, cities such as Houston and Poway saw a drop in accidents in the months immediately after cameras were turned off. But in 2011, Albuquerque Journal reported that red-light violations went up slightly right before cameras were due to be turned off, and they climbed nearly 600 percent at an intersection where some cameras were unplugged the previous year.

Riverside, which has cut the number of cameras over the years, saw accidents jump at intersections where all cameras were removed, but crashes slightly declined at other locations where only some cameras were taken out.

As Riverside Public Works Director Tom Boyd told the council, since it’s only been a matter of months, “There really is insufficient time, insufficient data to say if that’s a trend or not.”

Gardner said he doesn’t expect to see a major rise in serious crashes if Riverside’s cameras go away, but he thinks even the anti-camera majority on the council might reconsider the program if accidents do spike.

Jim Lissner, a Hermosa Beach anti-camera activist, said cities can use the data from cameras to improve intersection safety. For example, they could make traffic signals larger and easier to see or change the timing of lights to address the slowing reaction times of older drivers.

Montanez said Corona hasn’t had any fatal crashes from red-light running since removing the cameras, but the city has a variety of driver safety programs that could be making a difference.

While it’s hard to predict whether camera programs will continue to decline, he said, “The best solution is for people to drive safer. There’s no reason for anybody to have to worry about getting a ticket if they do everything they’re supposed to.”